Today the university and college lecturers’ union UCU passed a motion supporting the campaign for an academic boycott of Israel (158 for, 99 against, 17 abstentions) and a further motion calling for a “moratorium on research and cultural collaborations with Israel”.

Quite apart from the affront to such notions as academic freedom, human solidarity and Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation that the boycott campaign represents, it is also worth noting that motion #30 (“Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions”) contains the following extraordinary statement: “Congress believes that in these circumstances passivity or neutrality is unacceptable and criticism of Israel cannot be construed as anti-semitic“. Now what the hell is that supposed to mean? That no criticism of Israel can ever, possibly be anti-semitic? Or that not all criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-semitic? It could be read either way, couldn’t it? Which is a bit worrying, coming as it does from university and college lecturers, who might be expected to know a thing or two about writing clear English.

But of course, they also know a thing or two about dissembling, covering their tracks and hiding their true motives. Just like the superficially plausible UCU member Tom Hickey, interviewed on BBC radio today. It was very regrettable, he said, that the union had to even consider the question of a boycott, and all the union had done today, in fact, was to vote for an ongoing discussion about the possibility of a boycott, to be decided once such a discussion had taken place. Very reasonable: until Mr Hickey made it clear that the entire purpose of such a “discussion” was to endorse the boycott. This, it turns out, is the same Mr Hickey who “invited” NATFHE members (immediately before it merged with the AUT to form the UCU last year) “to consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those (Israeli academics) who do not publicly disassociate themselves (from Israel’s “apartheid” policies). It is also the same Mr Hickey who was filmed last year giving a talk in front of a screen upon which was displayed a recommended reading list, which included the holocaust-deniar Roger Garoudy’s “The Case of Israel”. Not surpisingly, it turns out that Mr Hickey is a member of that leading purvayor of “left-wing” anti-semitism the “S”WP.

No doubt it is also the “S”WP who are behind a similar bid to commit UNISON, at its conference in June, to support a boycott of Israel.

As David Hirsh of Engage, the left-wing campaign against anti-semitism, comments (refering to the UCU vote): “…this vote demonstrates that we live in dangerous times. The zeitgeist is now such that a representative body of te British intelligensia is prepared to say, in all seriousness and after due consideration, that criticism of Isreal can never be anti-semitic”.

On a positive note, however: whenever the arguments of the boycotters and the “left” anti-semites have been subjected to proper debate amongst rank and file union membership (as they were in the AUT, and are at the moment within the NUJ), they have been resoundingly defeated. That’s what must happen now within the UCU.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

52 Comments

It’s one of those classic motions where people get to sound dead wadical without actually having to do anything. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the people voting for it were the same wankers who chanted “we are all Hezbollah” on Lebanon demos without ever intending to go within half a continent of the warzone. Total bollocks, the antithesis of actual solidarity work with Palestinians, a conscience-salving exercise for middle class white lefties in the UK who have neither any possible recourse to, nor need for, actually living in the region for which they claim to be fighting. Bullshit, bollocks and political sophistry of the most craven kind.

It’s not “taking hold”. It’s been voted through at a delegate conference, and if it goes out to the union’s membership it’ll be defeated again, just like it was before in the old AUT section of what’s now the UCU.

And in terms of what you wrote, where (taking nutjob Likudnik websites aside) have you ever seen people who “criticise the IDF” being called anti-semites? It’s just not in the mainstream of political discourse – certainly in the UK – for people to do that.

Therefore “semetic” and “semite” does not only refer to Jews, but if they want to continue to call us Anti-Semetic for opposing Jewish/Zionist opression of Palestine then I agree with the following via Ziopedia.

did you know Ziopedia is a Holocaust revisionist outfit?

and if not, is it pure coincidence that you agree with their sentiments?

I may have got my report very slightly wrong: there seems to have been just one, composite pro-boycott motion passed (not two separate motions, as I wrote): it doesn’t change anything politically, but it’s always as well to try to be factually accurate. I see that Bob from Brockley is covering this matter in some detail (see link on the right). And there’s a useful report from the AWL (including details of the defeated AWL amendement) at http://www.workersliberty.org/node/8557

I am not entirely surprised that you haven’t responded, but let’s look at some of your points:

1. it is a common tactic on the far right to argue about the meaning of “antisemitism”, within standard English usage it means: antagonism, racism, etc or bigotry towards Jewish people

2. if you doubt this interpretation, I suggest that you consult good-quality dictionary such as the shorter Oxford, or you might take the opportunity to look up Wilhelm Marr and his use of the word “Judenhass”. Antisemitism as a word was used as a euphemism for “Judenhass”, but I suspect you probably know all that

4. I see that you not only link to Holocaust revisionists at Ziopedia, but to “the No War for Israel” web site, a neo-Nazi outfit, masquerading as “concerned” anti-war individuals, and supported run by David Duke, the famous ex-KKKer.

5. your “Fatwaworthy” section contains Stormfront, a major neo-nazis web site, you might want to move Zeopedia and “the No War for Israel” web site there too, as they are invariably run by similar minded individuals.

6. now appreciating that you might not want to openly associate with neo-Nazis, so do you think including links to wacky conspiracy web sites (who regularly invoke some Elder’s of Zion crap) is such a good idea? Do you consider Conspiracy Planet, Illuminati Conspiracy Archive, What Really Happened to be useful?

Jamal, if you are truly a serious person and interested in politics, without associating with the fringe neo-Nazis, then you might want to read up a bit and avoid those disgusting web sites, otherwise people may get the wrong impression about you and your views.

timsaid,

You are worried about Dafur!!!!!!!!!!! Yet you have in a wonderful Nazi like killing machine (thousands of palestinians have died or are incarcerated in camps, including Gaza and the West Bank) backed by the world’s richest jews and , you are joking about Darfur aren’t you?

Whatever you say, and I don’t want to hear what you have to say because it will be the same old rhetoric, we in the UK have had enough of Israel, we (the NUJ of which I am a member) have finally voted to boycott Israeli goods (I have been doing this since 1957 so it just legitimises it and spreads the word, all items with 7.29 in the bar code, Jaffa Carmel, etc) – universities will bring in an academic boycott and architects are now joining in too. It won’t stop there, we will do all in our power to make sure that you do not take any more land (you have already taken mine and refuse to pay for it). We can no longer send money to the PLO or Hamas, but we are sending people, we are not afraid of your wall, your evil soldiers (and you worry about one missing soldier, ha!) and will continue. We used to be mild, respected you because of the so called holocaust (a nice round number 6 million, what about the homosexuals, gypsies, deformed, dissenters, they NEVER get a mention and my family were among them)

So yes, we are very angry, we are working against Israel whereas before we supported you, and we will do all in our collective power to make life as uncomfortable for you as you make it for the Palestinians, shame on you, shame on all jews, may your lives be cursed

Jim Denhamsaid,

One other point: the “Morning Star” (paper, to all intents and purposed of the old Stalinist CPB), had a front-page lead on the UCU’s vote against snooping on extremists on campuses. So the “Star” clearly takes UCU Congress seriously. But the same edition had not one single word to say about the boycott motion (passed the same day as the “snooping” motion). Could this be because while the pro-‘Respect’ people who control the ‘Star’ support the boycott, leading CPB UCU Exec member Mary Davis opposed it, and spoke vigorously against it during the debate? It’s time for people who oppose “left” anti-semitism to get organised and put aside other differences: get Mary Davis on side in the campaign to defeat the boycott within UCU!

Richardsaid,

Jim. The boycott motion wasn’t until 4-00pm and they may not have got it in before the deadline. It was in the next day’s paper. Mary Davis made a very good speech by the way. So did Mark Osborne and another AWler.

Jim Denhamsaid,

You may be right about the deadline, Richard: but I still find it strange that the “Star” didn’t even mention the issue the next day. And I still think we anti-boycotters should make common cause with the healthy (ie: non-anti-semitic) forces within the CP, like Mary Davis.

It is worth pointing out that one thing the motion commits the union to is a funded tour of Palestinian trade unionists and academics arguing why they think a boycott is justified, with a view to allowing the membership to hear the Palestinian case (they have asked academic unions in Britain for their solidarity).

No doubt those of you with concerns can go and explain to them why their position is utterly irrational, against the values of solidarity etc, etc. Criticism of Israel is not the same thing as anti-semitism, and there is no connection whatsoever between the growing awareness that some kind of meaningful trade union solidarity with Palestinians is a vital political neccessity and anti-semitism. This is a point which needs to be made forcefully and I’m very pleased it has been. Thankfully because of this motion members of the union will have the opportunity to have these debates with their brothers and sisters suffering directly under military occupation in Palestine, who shamefully, have recieved very little in the way of solidarity through the organised trade union movement during that period.

That looks set to change. Whatever happens this year I think its pretty damaging if the only thing you guys have to say is to deny Palestinians a voice in debates within our union. They want solidarity. Its up to you to explain why you won’t give it to them.

Jim Denham if he likes, can turn up and give them a sermon about their crimes against reconciliation, human solidarity and universal values.

“Jim Denham, if he likes, can turn up and give them (Palestinians) a sermon about their crimes against reconciliation, human solidarity and universal values”: not “them”, John, but *you*, the “S” WP and the other “left” anti-semites on the British “left”. Palestinians at least have an excuse.
Btw: how about this from Ramzy Baroud in last Tursday’s ‘Morning Star’ (Baroud is outspokenly anti-Israel and pro-boycott):

“The main hurdle faced by advocates of a civil society boycott to compel Israel to end its brutal policies against the Palestinians is that the campaigns are neither centralised nor eminate from a well-regarded Palestinian source of authority and leadership”.
No they don’t. do they? They come from the “left” anti-semites of the British anti-Israel brigade like you and the PSC.

Last year´s NPD federal state election campaign was also centered around the old anticapitalist idea. The NPD pursued intensively and with the aid of right-wing provincial thugs a strategy of educational work in touch with the local people. On several flyers and numerous leaflets the nazis lamented over “national alternatives” towards “the trap of globalization”, over capitalist “bigwigs” or “American imperialism”. Anti-americanism and the simplistic logic of Good and Bad turned out to be a crowd-pleaser among the people of Mecklenburg-West Pommerania. With over 7 percent they voted the right-wing NPD into the federal state parliament.

That is why it is regarded as imperative to confront the neo-nazis and their nazi ideologie on the June 2, 2007 in Schwerin.

No doubt Jim you can explain to Palestinian trade unionists and academics how they are merely tools of the British left and unrepresentative of Palestinians (unlike, perhaps, yourself). It will be an interesting meeting.

Modernity when losing an argument tells lies about people, ignores everything they say, and hopes by repetition to create nasty associations which are non-existent. I therefore will never engage with him again.

modernityblogsaid,

Modernity when losing an argument tells lies about people, ignores everything they say,

I should ask if you’re standing in front of a mirror whilst typing, but I won’t.

I assume that you are referring to your craven defence of the Grand Mufti (at Harry’s Place) when he was in Berlin and your unconscionable desire to whitewashes record, even Muffin was disgusted by your conduct and he is one of the most charitable individuals around.

Modernity I at no point defended the Mufti, I at no point white washed him. Thats what you SAID I did on the basis of nothing at all. I gave an account of the nature of the conflict in the 1920’s and 30’s (which incidently I think was a balenced and useful one even for my ideological opponents). Some idiot then attempted to argue that the Mufti was a key figure in the Nazi Holocaust. Not being a Holocaust Revisionist I refused to go along with this politically motivated trivialization of that terrible history. You then made up a lot of crap about what I was saying. But anyway it is futile having dialogue with people who not only are incapable of rational argument or disagreement, but who, frankly, don’t have anything very interesting to say.

modernityblogsaid,

Modernity I at no point defended the Mufti, I at no point white washed him. Thats what you SAID I did on the basis of nothing at all.

on the contrary, you gave a largely sanitised view of his time in Berlin, and you did not answer the points concerning his complicit nature with the Holocaust, Eichmann, mass murder in Yugoslavia and the setting up of SS divisions, etc

instead you characterise the Grand Mufti’s time with the Nazis as a “notorious flirtation with the axis powers”, of course, anyone remotely familiar with the Grand Mufti’s intoxication with National Socialism would see how your statement plays down his role

and in the discussions at HP, JohnG, you were often given the chance to retract this mealymouthed statement but you chose not to, instead you defended it with all your intellectual vigour, and brought disapproval from even your strongest supporters or admirers at HP.

Your choice of words and misinterpretation of history is your own, just don’t try to foisted on others, we might not be so receptive.

I don’t wish to bore Shiraz Socialist’s readers with a re-run of this argument as they can read the full dialogue at HP and make up their own minds, but I would contend that the 12 plus years than the Mufti corresponded with, met with, and embraced the Nazis is something more than a “noxious flirtation”.

But let’s return to the illogical statement “Criticism of Israel is not the same thing as anti-semitism”

I think it’s fairly clear that from the above examples (and many more) that the statement is not only false, it is intellectually shoddy and incompatible with reason or history.

Again an utterly bizarre distortion. The Mufti was not motivated by National Socialism. He was motivated to halt Jewish emigration to Palestine. In the course of this he engaged in in what I described as a ‘notorious flirtation with the Nazi’s’ , attempted to make what I described as his anti-semitic ideology compatible with National Socialism, and was complicit in the horrors of the Nazi regime. All of this I said and even argued about in detail. Your response is to tell lies, make surreal accusations about ‘shoddy scholarship’ (its a bloody blog for gods sake) and refuse to engage with any of the substantive issues raised in the discussion. Now why on earth should I bother talking to you or answering anything you say? Actually, come to think of it why am I even bothering now? The only thing useful about this is that it reveals the depths to which you will sink in your endless campaign to prevent the Palestinian case from being heard. And it is this which needs to be combatted.

If someone is an anti-semite then they should be denounced for their anti-semitism. But there is nothing racist either about criticising Israel, or doing so in a manner which defenders of that regime regard as ‘unfair’. Nazies often claimed to oppose capitalism. This doesn’t make opposition to capitalism Nazi. The mounting calls for some form of meaningful solidarity with Palestinians flow from the objective situation and not from David Duke.

And these pathetic ‘debating’ tactics will not be effective. Try engaging properly with the actual arguments and try dealing honestly with the terrible historical injustice perpetrated against the Palestinians.

You just don’t see how disgusting your arguments are, do you, John? I simply cannot conceive of any other kind of racism (than anti-semitism) being dealt with so sensitively by anyone who claims to be on the left. So the Grand mufti wasn’t a “national socialist” but simply wanted to “halt Jewish emmigration (sic) to Palestine”? My gawd, Adolph Eichman should have had you on his defense team!
I am reminded of your enthusiasm for, and defence of, some piece of racist scum who wrote “let’s have some fun with anti-semitism”. You thought that was OK, didn’t you?

Actually Denham I’m interested in reality not fantasies. And no. I don’t think Richard Neumann is ‘racist scum’. Increasingly Jim it seems to me that hanging out with real fascists on the net has done something to your brain. But anyway. This place is no different to Harry’s Place these days. And given that the AWL is now campaigning vehmanantly against Palestinian voices being heard in the trade union movement, I think its probably true that this marks the end of any possibility of useful dialogue.

Before you go, John: please tell me which “real fascists” I “hang out with” “on the net”? “Hang out with” suggesting that I knowingly consort with them, yes?
I seriously suggest that you should back that allegation up with some facts: or else stand exposed as a hysterical liar.
P.S: This is not the first time I’ve had to call you out for this sort of thing, and last time it happened you couldn’t come up with a shred of evidence for your similarly outrageous accusation.

Simon Bsaid,

Modernity when losing an argument tells lies about people, ignores everything they say, and hopes by repetition to create nasty associations which are non-existent. I therefore will never engage with him again.”

modernityblogsaid,

and here are some comments on Michael Neumann (I suspect that JohnG and his various allies will say it is all “Zionist propaganda” with inevitable predictability):

“More recently, in August of 2003, the extreme right wing Canadian Heritage Alliance News advertised the plight of “Trent University’s Problem Professor – Fighting for Freedom! Fighting for Canada!” in a banner headline. The professor in question is Michael Neumann, a philosophy professor at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, who had been posting his essays on the left-wing website Counterpunch.org. While the articles varied in subject matter, they almost always portrayed Israel as “a growing evil.” His writings include such statements as “If it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews” (see also below). The Heritage Front website portrays Neumann sympathetically, as one who is “Fighting for Canada” and “Fighting for freedom.”

and

“For example, Michael Neumann, professor of philosophy at Trent University, wrote in the 4 January 2003 edition of Counterpunch magazine: “We should almost never take antisemitism seriously…” He also went on to say that Jews around the world who do not explicitly condemn Israel are “complicit in its crimes.” In an e-mail correspondence which ensued in light of this incident, Neumann wrote that his sole concern was to “help the Palestinians” and he went on: “I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose … If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable antisemitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist antisemitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care.”

If you read Neumann’s article (and indeed his letter) its interesting that Pike refuses to engage with what Neumann actually says. Which is just the standard way of proceeding around here. Neumann argues that supporters of Israel are in danger of transforming anti-semitism into something meaningless and thinks this is a BAD thing. He also grapples with a number of quite serious questions to do with the conflict. In his furious row with anti-semites he stated that he would not not support Palestinians in their struggle against injustice even if there was a danger of anti-semitism. This is not an anti-semitic position.

This is his actual article. One might as well read what he says and judge what he’s actually saying rather then what it would be politic to claim what he is saying. I don’t argue you this for the sake of modernity who knows this anyway but is uninterested in real issues. There may be some genuine Socialists left here. In any case here’s a test. See if you can summerise his ‘argument’ rather then sieze on an out of context quote. Then state what it is about his ‘argument’ that you disagree with:

Oh and in terms of the precise exchange quoted: Neumann claims that some of it is distorted (Nazis who were baiting him distributed it) and apologised for the rest. Its not up to me to make judgements about the true nature of Neumann. I go by his published article and the argument in it.

modernityblogsaid,

“If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable antisemitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist antisemitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care.” ??

John:
1/which bit of the exchange did Neuman apologise for?
2/ And – if he did feel the need to apologise – why do you persist in defending him without qualification?
3/ When you say “it’s not up to me to make judgements about the true nature of Neuman. I go by his published article and the argument in it” – would you say the same about anyone else accused of racism? David Irving, for instance?

…again, I have to ask: have you no awareness of how disgusting and revolting your words appear?

modernityblogsaid,

Now if we “contexualise” Neumann’s article, we see that he reserves his persuasive sophistry for published articles, but in fact his exchange with the Jewish tribal review was more revealing of his true feelings.

Neumann stated “I do object to posting the exchange, very much so. My messages were not thought out with the deliberation I would take in making public pronouncements,”

I think that Neumann’s sentiments here are fairly obvious, that when it comes to public consumption he’s happy to use his verbosity to minimise antisemitism, but he doesn’t want people to know this or his true feelings on the matter.

So Neumann objects when a bunch of Jew hating neo-Nazis expose some of his twisted (shared) thinking.

as if such neo-nazi scum could be trusted in the first place?

btw, I doubt any genuine socialist or like minded person would EVER try to excuse or explain away the revolting Neumann-Jewish Tribal Review exchange

Yes I do know who they are. Its a nasty nazi anti-semitic journal who opened a campaign against Neumann. He certainly did not ‘trust’ them although strangely you seem to. One notes that you refuse to look at what he actually said (anybody here). I don’t defend what he said. Again read what I actually wrote. But of course that doesn’t matter. The only goal of the so-called Socialists here is to ensure that all defenders and representatives of the Palestinians are branded as anti-semites. Increasingly this seems to be the only purpose of this current on the left.

modernityblogsaid,

“When you say “it’s not up to me to make judgements about the true nature of Neuman. I go by his published article and the argument in it” – would you say the same about anyone else accused of racism? David Irving, for instance?”

The boycott is an effective measure against the Israeli Academy – which is not a homogenous entity, but nonetheless is one with its roots in ethnic cleansing and Jewish supermacism.

As for the “why Israel” question – it’s a fairly redundant one. The same question could be asked of campaign against states or groups that abuse human rights systematically, like the Zionists, from China to Darfur.Posted by Callum at June 4, 2007 04:46 PM”

Callum is, as far as we are told, a SWP member,

JohnG, do you consider the notion of “Jewish supremacism” to be valid or in any way acceptable?

or do you think it is essentially an antisemitic notion?

which is it?

I hope that you are not tempted to ignore this question, because without a satisfactory reply, people will have to assume that SWP members are happy to take on the lexicon of David Duke and his allies, and possibly some of their ideas?

modernityblogsaid,

I think that the SWP and leading members, such as JohnG, should be held to account for racist language when used by its members such as Callum and I have to wonder why someone like Cullam can so easily adopt the language and sentiment of David Duke with the racist notion of “Jewish supremacism” and little is heard from SWPers?

w hingertysaid,

If its “hate” then the people who practice this hate are brave. The jails of Europe ARE filled with people who spoke out against Israel or questioned The holocost. Would you people risk jail to insult white sepratists? No you pick a popular mainstream belief and think you are brave and noble for condemning a race that just wants to survive. I cant work at any decent job because the racial quotas force me out, yet I score in the 90s on Civil service tests. Also as VietNam vet I should get extra points. Its never helped me. EVER. Zundel,Irving, to name a few. prof Faurrison was attcked..what brave people to beat up an 80yr old man. An evil HATER. Dont you hate too? You hate us. We think there is something wrong with a country that allows racal quotas, ignores attacks on USN ships(USS Liberty) our cities(9-11)Not the AYrabs! If you dont lsten with an open mind, you will miss the barn by mile. You are helpinhg the people who want to bury you. 5 people were arrested, celebrating on 9-11..where are they now? They had explosives..boxcutters..etc. But they let them go.